JOSEPH DANIEL FLOWERS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that while a written order of competency is required, the proper remedy for its absence is to affirm the judgment and remand for entry of a nunc pro tunc order.
The defendant was found guilty of seven charges and appealed the final judgment. He argued that the trial court failed to enter a written order findin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Nunc Pro Tunc Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Joseph Daniel Flowers appeals the final judgment after a jury found him guilty of seven charges. We affirm, but remand this case to the trial court to enter a written order of competency.
Flowers correctly argues that the trial court must enter a written order finding the defendant competent. See Fla. R. Crim.P. 3.212(b). However, as noted by this court in White v. State, 548 So.2d 765, 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), where a trial court has entered an oral finding that the defendant is competent, but no written order of competency has been entered, the proper remedy is to affirm the judgment and to remand the case to the trial court for entry of a nunc pro tunc order finding the defendant competent to stand trial.
We disagree with Flowers’s assertion that the court was required to conduct a second competency proceeding. Nothing was presented to the trial court which could raise a bona fide and reasonable doubt as to his competency at the time of his October 2013 trial or November 2013 sentencing hearing. See Pericola v. State, 499 So.2d 864, 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), pet. rev. denied, 509 So.2d 1118 (Fla.1987).
We affirm the final judgment, but remand this case to the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc order finding Flowers competent to stand trial.
SWANSON and MAKAR, JJ„ and SJOSTRUM, JONATHAN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dextrious G. Denmark v. State, 189 So. 3d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED but REMANDED with directions for the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc order finding the Appellant competent to stand trial. See Flowers v. State, 143 So. 3d 459, 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). ROBERTS, C.J., WOLF and KELSEY, JJ., concur.…
-
Davis v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…IAM. The State correctly concedes that the trial court erred by failing to enter a written order memorializing its oral finding that appellant was competent to proceed at the time he entered his plea. A written order is required. Flowers v. State, 143 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.212(b)). We remand for the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc order finding appellant was competent to proceed at that time. Id. WOLF, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. ____________________________…
-
Robinson v. State, 250 So. 3d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- White v. State, 548 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Reynolds v. State, 499 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)